Why Metaphysics Matters Bonnitta Roy1 Abstract: A lively discussion about why metaphysics matters in our current Metamodern era. I derive a process model of metaphysics based on Whiteheadian process philosophy. I interweave Gebser’s notion of the mental structure of consciousness into a deeper understanding of the difference between the up-ward synthetic-dialectic of the western mind, and the downward, deconstructive dialectic in the eastern approach. I show how Hartshorne’s process metaphysics resolved both eastern and western dilemmas around the ultimate categories. I end with a description of the problem situation we have of escalating epistemic complexity, and how adopting a process metaphysical praxis can help us renew our ways of meeting the complexity of the world. Keywords: Complexity science, Dogen, Gebser, hyperobjects, integral consciousness, Nagarjuna, overmining, process philosophy, synthetic-dialectic, Whitehead. Metaphysics is all about Describing Water to Fish Metaphysics has acquired a bad reputation. I want to show you why metaphysics matters. Metaphysics means different things to different people. In the history of philosophy it has become somewhat a catch-all for all types of meta-philosophizing. Metaphysics can be reclaimed by examining its roots in mathematics and geometry – which no one would argue don’t matter to physics. Theoretical mathematicians, creating mathematical frameworks that are built up in rigorously logical ways, through complex rules of logic and translation, are the purest metaphysicians of all. Metaphysics in this regard is the study of, understanding of, and creation of conceptual frameworks that can function in a variety of ways: for beauty, for usefulness, for meaning-making, for deconstructing limiting frameworks, for experimenting, for trying something new just for the hell of it, for creating new languages such as writing computer codes or “inventing” non-Euclidian geometry, for creating fantasy worlds in literature or virtual reality. Metaphysics gets into trouble when it tries to make truth claims about the world. No true metaphysician would make such claims, because the pre-requisite of a valid metaphysics, is that it understands what underlies all truth claims, namely a cognitive-conceptual architecture, i.e., a metaphysical framework. While it may not be possible for the philosopher to reveal the contours of their framework, (in other words, think themselves out of their metaphysical box), a good metaphysician reminds themselves that there is one, beyond the horizons of their capacity to think. The goal of a metaphysics, contemporarily, is to sew together what Kant’s metaphysics tore apart: the domains of epistemology and ontology. Here I use the simple working definitions that “Epistemology concerns itself with how we know about reality,” and “Ontology concerns itself 1 Bonnitta Roy is Founder of Alderlore Insight Center and Founding Associate of APP Associates, International. She teaches a masters course in consciousness studies at The Graduate Institute, and is an associate editor of Integral Review. [email protected] INTEGRAL REVIEW January 2019 Vol. 15, No. 1 Roy: Why Metaphysics Matters. 41 with reality.” Kant pointed to the limitations of the human mind, language, thought and existential conditions as barriers to knowing the world as it really is. He highlighted certain rules of logic, science and judgment that could serve as accurate correspondences to what is real. Ontology was thereafter whisked away from the discourses of theology and theosophy and made subservient to the rules and methodologies of scientific reasoning. Once the post-modern mind began to “see” that the scientific enterprise itself could also be contextualized by deconstructive critique, the very idea of an ontologically real truth was abandoned. The philosopher Roy Bhaskar (2002, 2009) created an entire new philosophy called Critical Realism to redress the postmodern overcorrection. With the word “critical” Bhaskar preserved the deconstructive act of metaphysical examination. With the word “realism” Bhaskar restored the belief in levels of reality that exist independent of human reasoning, positing that there is an ontologically real domain of existence that is not dependent upon epistemological claims. Bhaskar emphasized that this ontologically independent domain is available to examination through methods of reasoning and knowing that generate epistemologically valid truths. Yet, even the epistemologically untapped domain of the real, persistently calls us, to listen at levels deeper than the reasoning mind. This untapped domain, calls to us with what Bhaskar called the alethic truth. The alethic truth is not an epistemologically known or empirically verifiable truth. Rather it discloses itself through our own existential condition, which is an impulse to greater degrees of freedom. This impulse realizes greater freedoms by throwing off the shackles of slavery and bondage, but also, and perhaps more importantly, by acts of pure creation, by presencing what is absent, as, for example, in Charles Eisenstein’s (2013) words, “creating the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible.”2 Critical Realism plays an important role in healing the rift between epistemology and ontology. But what of metaphysics? When Bhaskar says that philosophy should “under-labor” for science, he comes close to describing a new metaphysical orientation. Under-laboring means revealing the boundary conditions in which certain scientific truths are (and are not) true. If we do a simple empirical test, let’s say, by dropping a feather and a stone from a tower at precisely the same time, our naïve results might suggest that the “falling force” pulls at selective speeds, depending on the substance. We might conclude that the “falling force” has greater affection for rocks over feathers; or we might conclude that the speed of gravity depends upon the mass of the object. To think of gravity, as Einstein did, as accelerating inertial frames, is an act of pure metaphysical innovation. As such, Einstein argued, the feather and the stone fall at the same velocity and reach the ground at the same time. The difference we see in our experiments are due to the different effects of air resistance. Einstein’s new metaphysics, had such explanatory power, that science switched to his position. Only recently were we able to actually observe a feather and a stone falling (to the earth) at the same velocity and reaching ground at precisely the same time.3 Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion constitute a set of metaphysical assumptions that prove to be helpful. Still, they lock us into a certain frame of reference that limits what can be known about the world. Newton’s metaphysics claims that “an object in motion will stay in motion unless an external force is applied to it.” In Newton’s metaphysics, there is no place for self-animated objects. We are comfortable, then, with not including living beings like ourselves. But what of electrons moving in a copper wire wrapped around a magnet? Here we don’t need a third term that identifies the external force. The objects themselves are participating in this dance of movement. 2 Similarly Sloterdiik speaks of “vertical tension” that propels us toward future possibilities. 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs INTEGRAL REVIEW January 2019 Vol. 15, No. 1 Roy: Why Metaphysics Matters. 42 We can choose to separate the objects and the “forces” that move them, in much the way that Georg Ohm’s equations do to describe laws of electricity. Ohm conceived of electricity as “currents” just like currents in a stream. This is an act of metaphorical imagination, which releases the complexity of the equations he needed to describe certain fixed relationships between voltage (intensity) and resistance. What if, instead of creating a third term like “current” Ohm thought of the action of electrons as population dynamics of self-organizing systems? There would be no need for a third term. What he viewed as “currents” would become, instead, the “emergent patterns” of complex self-organizing dynamics. What I want to point out here is that good metaphysics creates greater clarity by improving the precision of the description of phenomena. Mathematics is a language of great descriptive precision. This is the reason why Charles Hartshorne (1983) considered mathematics as the purest form of metaphysics. Another alternative would be to switch to a metaphysics of self-animated form.4 Einstein moved in this direction when he reimagined gravity not as an external force “pulling” on objects (mass) but rather, as something that mass (objects) does. Two objects dance around each other, and self- organize a familiar pattern we call “acceleration due to the force of gravity.” Yet, with a metaphysics of self-animation, we have no need for the third term “force of gravity.” I first discovered this query in high school when we learned about electricity. Wrap a copper wire around a magnet, and voila! you get electric current. In the laboratory I would shake my head and ask “But where does the electricity come from?” This persistent need for a third term is a necessary consequence of a Newtonian metaphysics of inanimate objects. It’s the metaphysics that cries out for a third term. You can experience this yourself by watching this video of the world’s simplest electric train. In similar fashion, the term “ether” was posited as a substance that propagated the light wave, in the same way that sound is the propagation of air waves. Hence, there is no sound in the vacuum of space. We now think of light as a wave form unto itself, capable of propagating through space without a theory of an ether. In the procession of metaphysical vies, third terms like “ether” “gravity” and “electric current,” are both presented and absented at different times.5 4 As it turns out, form can be considered "self-animated" because "animation" (the energy-momentum tensor) is what now quantifies the amount of matter, according to contemporary Quantum Field Theory.